PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY (Hansard, 13 November 1973)

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Government consider that the present situations in the coal and electricity generating industries constitute a threat to the essentials of life of the community which is sufficiently serious to justify taking immediate emergency powers to maintain essential services. They have, therefore, thought it right to advise the proclamation of a state of emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended, followed by the making of emergency regulations under Section 2.
The regulations will be laid before Parliament and will come into force at midnight tonight. Published copies will be available tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will shortly announce the arrangements for debating the motions on the Address and on the regulations. The regulations are almost identical with those made in August 1972; the only significant additions are to Regulations 19, 20 and 21 extending the powers of the Secretary of State over water and sewerage.
258 The use of the powers will be limited, as always, to what the essential public interest requires.

Hon. Members
Resign.

§ Mrs. Shirley Williams
This is the fifth emergency to have been declared in just over three years under this Government compared with one state of emergency declared in the whole of the previous 15 years. [Laughter.] Hon. Members on the Government side may laugh but they should recognise that governing in a democracy by a state of emergency is a highly dangerous thing to do. The Home Secretary has declared that the essentials of life of the community are threatened by the overtime bans in the coal and electricity generating industries. May I ask whether the overtime ban in the mines, which has lasted for just one day, and which was described by The Times today as having had only a slight effect on supplies—

§ Mr. William Clark
What does The Times know about it?

§ Mrs. Williams
—and which was against the background of a statement by the Government that there are 12 weeks of coal supplies at the power stations, justifies a state of emergency? Will the Home Secretary say whether the reasons for this state of emergency do not have much more to do with the persistent optimism of the Government over Middle East oil supplies, with the timing of the recent by-elections and with the desire to place the blame for the economic state of the country on the trade unions than they have to do with the overtime bans in these two industries?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House, as the state of emergency has been declared in terms of coal and electricity, that there will be no action whatsoever to ration or restrict oil supplies? Will he give that assurance since it does not occur in the announcement about the state of emergency? If he cannot give that assurance we shall reach very different conclusions about the reasons for the state of emergency. Will he say whether the powers which are contained in all emergency regulations to control the price of essential foodstuffs will be brought into operation immediately, because I am sure the Government appreciate that the only hope they have of 259 making phase 3 effective is to impose price controls on essential foodstuffs?
Why did the right hon. Gentleman choose last night to make a statement dealing with violence in industrial relations to a meeting at Leicester when no violence has been offered and when none has yet occurred and when it is not the Home Secretary's job to be provocative in this manner?

§ Mr. Carr
On the question of timing, there was only one factor which the Government took into account, and that was what is required to safeguard the public interest. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) referred to governing in a democracy by means of a state of emergency—

§ Mr. Freeson
And lies.

§ Mr. Carr
The hon. Lady might also have mentioned democracy requiring some respect for the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]

§ Mr. Heffer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know on what basis the Home Secretary can speak in terms of the miners—[Interruption.]—or any other class of workers breaking the law at this moment.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order. The Minister is responsible for his statement. But I wish there was a little more general order in the House.

§ Mr. Carr
The miners' leaders—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—have made specifically clear that they realise that they are pressing a claim contrary to the Government's pay policy—[Interruption.]—which was approved by this House, and they have specifically stated that if this may break the Government so be it.

§ Mr. Atkinson
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Stallard
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall take points of order when the Minister has finished his statement.

§ Mr. Carr
It must also be borne in mind that the National Union of Mineworkers has made clear in its plan and in its intention—

§ Mr. Freeson
Is this part of the statement?

§ Mr. Carr
I am answering a question asked by the hon. Member for Hitchin. The miners' leaders have made quite clear that they are expecting and intending this overtime ban to have a severe effect on the output of coal very quickly. The National Coal Board has this morning confirmed to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry that this is indeed almost certain to be the effect on the supply of coal and, therefore, on the supply of electricity. That being so, and to come to the second part of the hon. Lady's question, in view also of the uncertainty about oil supplies owing to the crisis in the Middle East, the Government are in no doubt that it is necessary straight away to take measures required to conserve fuel supplies of all kinds and to make sure, as far as it is possible, that fuel supplies are directed to the most essential purposes in order to maintain public life and work over the maximum period and with the minimum of inconvenience. That is the sole reason for taking these powers now, and I believe that we are justified in taking them now and that we could have been criticised if we had left it any longer.
As to the control of prices, the regulations contain as usual the power to make orders on that, and we shall deal with it when it comes—[Interruption.] As the hon. Lady knows full well, whether or not to use any of the powers in the regulations must be decided in the proper way by the matter coming before this House.
The hon. Lady asked why I chose last night to make a statement about picketing. I did not choose last night. I was at a meeting and I was asked a question—[Interruption.] No statement was issued by me. I am not in any way questioning the report that I replied to the question. I said nothing that I have not said publicly on many occasions over the last 18 months. I can see nothing wrong with reaffirming what I have said not only over the last few months but over the last year or more. While it is up to the chief constables in their own areas to take whatever action they may consider necessary to enforce the law—and I have no right to intervene and would not dream of doing so—it is my duty as Home Secretary, as it has always been the duty of Home Secretaries, to ensure that the police are properly 261 organised to carry out their particular duties.
All I did last night was to say, in reply to a question, what I had said before—namely, that in ensuring that this should happen we had established a central information room at Scotland Yard which would be able to report to me any such events, should they arise, and on which chief constables could draw, and also that arrangements for co-operation between police forces had been made more systematic than hitherto.
I also referred to the fact that this systematic organisation had been put to the test on one occasion already in relation to the very violent demonstrations in an attempt to close the ports on the North Lincolnshire coast during the dock strike in the summer of last year. All that I have said before, and I added nothing to it whatever.

§ Mr. Speaker
I made a slip of the tongue just now. I said that I hoped there would not be a point of order until the end of the Home Secretary's statement. I should have said, "Until the end of exchanges on the statement".

§ Mr. Atkinson
Thank you for your comment on points of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we can have the opportunity to come back to that matter.
In what way does the Home Secretary claim that a disrespect for the law, and by whom, necessitates the introduction of emergency powers? What sort of discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with Her Majesty the Queen? Has he discussed with her the disrespect shown for the law by certain sections of the community as the reason for asking for her permission for the Government to introduce emergency powers? What is the relationship, for instance, between a trade union declaring an overtime ban and the necessity for introducing emergency laws? What is the difference between this occasion and the many occasions since 1970 when trade unionists have decided that it is sufficient for them to work normal hours and that they should expect a decent living wage? Will the Home Secretary tell us where this disrespect for the law is and what it has got to do with emergency powers?

§ Mr. Carr
I never said for one moment that the reason for the proclamation was 262 disrespect for the law. If anyone thinks that I did, I will correct that at once. The hon. Member for Hitchin commented—it was a comment—that this is the fifth occasion on which the present Government have had to advise the Queen to make a proclamation of a state of emergency. She pointed out that this was not the way to govern in a democracy. I made another comment which I think I was justified in making, not as a reason for doing this, any more than the hon. Lady's comment was a reason for doing it. I said—

§ Mr. Kelley
On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us whether there is any precedent for the Royal Personage making a proclamation of any kind to pre-empt a debate which this House has decided on before that proclamation was made?

§ Mr. Speaker
The House will follow the usual procedures. There will be a business statement—in a moment or two, I hope—indicating when the House can debate this matter. Perhaps the Leader of the House will not mind my saying I know that that debate will be quite soon.

§ Mr. Carr
All I commented was that the miners' leaders had said that they would have to break the Government if necessary. That is not democratic government either. The one and only reason for the state of emergency is the declared intention and belief of the miners that they are going to reduce supplies of coal very quickly when it is absolutely essential that we should conserve supplies in the public interest.

§ Mr. Skeet
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the miners, important as they are in this community, represent only .04 per cent. of the total population? Therefore, is it not right that consideration should be given to the general public which constitutes 99.96 per cent. of the population? Bearing in mind the shortage of fuel, is this not the time to consider whether oil allocations should be introduced?

§ Mr. Carr
What we are considering is one thing only—the need for emergency powers to ensure the service of fuel supplies of all kinds in the public interest.

§ Mr. Loughlin
Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that, whatever state of emergency exists, he cannot dig coal with bayonets? Secondly, will he remember that people have a right to determine whether they shall work overtime or not, and that if they do not have that right they are living in a slave state? Thirdly, will the regulations enable there to be direction of labour, and if so, will he direct the Stock Exchange "spivs" and the land and building speculators, who have contributed more to the state of emergency than the miners ever will contribute?

§ Mr. Carr
Certainly the miners have the right not to work overtime, but, if they so cut coal supplies to the public that it is necessary to direct and ration supplies of fuel to keep public life going, then the Government have not only the right but the duty to take powers to conserve fuel.

§ Sir Robin Turton
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of ordinary citizens will give him their support in efforts to preserve vital supplies to the nation in resistance to the demands of blackmail on the rest of the community?

§ Mr. Carr
I believe that my right hon. Friend is right in his judgment. I repeat that there is nothing illegal in not working overtime. What would be undemocratic would be to defy the law passed by this House in order to break the Government of the day, which is what the miners' leaders said they were going to do.

§ Mrs. Shirley Williams
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be much clearer if the Home Secretary simply withdrew his earlier statement about the unions breaking the law?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Has there ever before been a precedent for a state of emergency being declared for a threatened ban on overtime? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if a ban on overtime causes the collapse of an industry, and, indeed, a threat to the whole nation, it is a devastating indictment of the way that industry is run?

§ Mr. Carr
In my statement I referred to two circumstances—the overtime ban in the coal industry and the equivalent sort of action in the electrical power industry by the engineers. I specifically referred to both together. It is a fact that both of those together, particularly when taking into account what the miners have said—that they believe that the result of their action will be to cut coal supplies very quickly and because the National Coal Board has confirmed to the Government that that will be the effect of their action—have made it necessary to ensure that the life of the overwhelming majority of the community can continue. I never said they were breaking the law by not working overtime. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did."] What I said was that to break the law passed by this Parliament about pay and to do it with the deliberate intention of breaking the properly elected Government of the country is even more undemocratic than anything we have had to deal with so far.

§ Mr. Tom King
Since everyone is aware of the difficult situation with electricity, coal and oil, is it not clear that the Government will have the overwhelming support of the whole country and that they will be seen to be prudent and responsible in taking early powers to control in particular the unnecessary and wasteful use of power?

§ Mr. Carr
I believe it is essential, and I think that the whole House should reflect upon this, that in these circumstances, taking place as they do at a time when there is great uncertainty about the supply of oil, any Government would be wholly lacking in prudence not to take these powers early rather than late.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am in a difficulty. As the House knows, we have a debate about coal supplies to come, and we are also to have a debate, quite soon, which will be announced shortly, on these emergency regulations. I believe that the House would be well advised to move on.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I will allow one more question.

§ Mr. Jay
Are the Government trying to blame the miners for last month's appalling trade figures? Instead of declaring emergencies, when will the Government take some effective steps to arrest the disastrous trade situation which their policies have created?

§ Mr. Carr
The answer to the first question is a categoric "No". There is absolutely no connection at all. The right hon. Gentleman must know this perfectly well. Dealing with the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I am glad to say that exports are rising in volume—[Interruption.] and value rapidly. My right hon. Friend has referred to that. We have already taken action this morning.

§ Mr. Atkinson
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to raise my point of order because the Home Secretary has come to the House to ask for emergency powers, ostensibly to do with our fuel and energy supplies, but really so that, if necessary, he has the power to imprison trade unionists.
The emergency powers give the Government the right to imprison organised workers in certain circumstances. If the Government are saying now that they wish to have these powers but do not intend to use them, or if they will give an undertaking that they will in no way interfere with the freedom of organised workers and have no desire in any circumstances whatever to do so, no matter what the event, and that they will not seek to imprison trade unionists, the Home Secretary should say so.
How do we debate what were the reasons given to Her Majesty the Queen when the right hon. Gentleman sought permission to introduce these emergency powers? The right hon. Gentleman has not given adequate reasons for the Government's applying for these powers. Will he now give an assurance—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think I have allowed the hon. Member enough latitude. The answer to the point he raises is simple. This is debatable and will be debated quite soon. If the emergency regulations are not approved by the House, that will be the end of them.